I understand that free health care isnt "free", we would be paying for it in taxes. we can afford it. if we can afford hundereds of billions of dollars to fund the "war on terror", we can afford health care for everyone in america. my question is why dont americans want to do it? its really not as difficult as everyone thinks. if everything is run by government funding, then there is no money to be made by corporations. Therefore it wouldnt be more costly, it would actually be cheaper, because you do away with competition in that industry. people wouldnt be focused on making money, but rather helping other people.
2007-11-11
12:40:41
·
7 answers
·
asked by
BluEyeDevil
1
in
Politics & Government
➔ Law & Ethics
NO ONE can afford for the government to pay for things we can by for ourselves. When someone else writes the check, we forget that we ARE paying and use more of the product. This increases costs. It also adds costs by paying government bureaucrats to run the system.
You say if the government runs things, there is no money to be made by corporations. That IS the problem. If there is no money to be made, no one will provide the product. Corporations must Find ways to keep costs down to compete with other companies. The government has no such incentive. As a matter of fact, they have the OPPOSITE incentive. The MORE they spend, the more they can claim they need next year.
2007-11-11 12:50:19
·
answer #1
·
answered by STEVEN F 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Trust me, you can't afford the taxes. You would also find that the healthcare will be managed and rationed. That means when Grandma has a heart attack, your family will be told that she is 65 and too old for any treatment or surgery. The middle class will suffer the most under Universal Health Care because the rich will have private hospitals and private pay doctors (the best ones!) and will not be waiting in line with you and me.....after waiting 6 hours, you will likely be told the doctors have seen their quota for the day. Come back tomorrow if you are still alive.
2007-11-11 12:54:38
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
It does not be loose. each guy or woman might pay a top class in step with income. human beings making minimum salary or in low paying jobs might pay much less that those creating an better gross sales. the government might proceed to subsidize the place needed. good now the government is choosing up the full banana..... 40 seven million individuals are devoid of scientific coverage in our united states of america with the aid of fact the can not have the money for the rates charged by utilising the enormous-shot for-income coverage companies. yet another 50 million are underinsured. Taking the coverage corporation out of the equation and engaged on a NON-income foundation, honestly everyone might have the capacity to pay something, in step with income. people who talk approximately "loose" healthcare have not any clue what it rather is all approximately...they have not stricken to benefit something approximately it, examine something approximately it, hear to Congress and others talk it. they only hear to their the two uninformed chum, acquaintances and friends.
2016-09-29 01:15:58
·
answer #3
·
answered by chappel 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
The insurance industry, pharmaceutical industry, medical industry (AMA), etc. have very strong lobbies in Washington DC and they totally influence what the US Congress and the US Senate approve or disapprove. If we had national health care it would eliminate the medical insurance industry and it would strongly regulate the pharmaceutical and medical industries. The lobbyists would never let this happen without a huge fight.
2007-11-11 12:50:52
·
answer #4
·
answered by mollyflan 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
There is your problem, no money to corporations, now I am not talking about corruption or anything. The corporations do the research for new better drugs. Without that ;medical advances are stalled, and with diseases evolving as fast as we can counter them, this could turn into a very bad situation fast. Competition actually lowers the price not heightens it, that is why monopolies are so bad, because they can set the price for whatever they want.
2007-11-11 12:47:18
·
answer #5
·
answered by Richard 3
·
0⤊
2⤋
by "run by government funding" do you mean a free market or a government run health-care system. the first one could be very costly because there would be middle man everywhere taking there piece of the pie where as a government run health care system will be cheaper because they will be less wastage.
2007-11-11 12:47:06
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
O.K. put the war money in health care....everybody would be healthy until the fanitical Muslins come to you house and kill you.....thus the saying "He looks good" while you are laying in your coffin would apply....you are an idiot
2007-11-11 12:51:16
·
answer #7
·
answered by dutara 3
·
0⤊
1⤋